Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Setting aside a No Written Statement (No WS) order does not automatically set aside a prior No Cross Examination order. The two are distinct procedural rulings, and one does not necessarily impact the validity of the other. For example, ["Suryakant Bhagwandas Sharma vs Radhakishan Khushaldas Chawla - Bombay"] states that even when a No WS order is challenged and set aside, no explanation has been given as to why the application for setting aside no written statement order was not filed during the eight-month period when the suit proceedings were ongoing, and the order rejecting the application for setting aside the No WS remains valid. Similarly, ["Smt Zareena Tabassum vs Banka Purushotham - Telangana"] clarifies that the order setting aside ex parte proceedings or allowing cross-examination is independent, and the court's decision to set aside a No WS does not imply the cross-examination rights are automatically restored or invalidated.
The distinction is also supported by procedural law principles, where the timing and context of orders matter. For instance, ["Jain Technologies VS Salora International Ltd - Delhi"] emphasizes that there was no order suspending the time for filing the written statement during the pendency of the mediation, and the failure to file a WS within the stipulated period does not automatically suspend other procedural rights such as cross-examination. Moreover, ["Chhota @ Gouranga Behera vs State of Orissa - Orissa"] demonstrates that even if a No Cross order is set aside, it does not automatically imply that the rights to cross-examine witnesses are restored unless explicitly ordered.
In summary, the main insight is that a No WS order being set aside does not automatically nullify or set aside a prior No Cross Examination order. Each order addresses different procedural rights and must be considered independently unless explicitly linked by the court's ruling. Courts have consistently maintained that procedural rights such as cross-examination are not automatically revived or forfeited solely due to the setting aside of a No WS order ["Suryakant Bhagwandas Sharma vs Radhakishan Khushaldas Chawla - Bombay"], ["Smt Zareena Tabassum vs Banka Purushotham - Telangana"].
References:- ["Suryakant Bhagwandas Sharma vs Radhakishan Khushaldas Chawla - Bombay"]- ["Smt Zareena Tabassum vs Banka Purushotham - Telangana"]- ["Jain Technologies VS Salora International Ltd - Delhi"]- ["Chhota @ Gouranga Behera vs State of Orissa - Orissa"]
In civil litigation, procedural orders like 'No Written Statement (No WS)' and 'No Cross-Examination' play critical roles in maintaining trial timelines and fairness. But what happens when one is set aside? A common query arises: setting aside a No Written Statement (No WS) order does not automatically set aside a prior No Cross-Examination order. This distinction is vital for litigants and lawyers navigating Indian civil procedure. This post delves into the legal implications, drawing from key judgments and principles to clarify when and how such orders interact.
Understanding these nuances can prevent procedural missteps and ensure adherence to natural justice. While this is general information based on precedents, consult a legal professional for case-specific advice.
Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, courts may proceed ex-parte or strike defenses if a defendant fails to file a written statement within the stipulated time—typically 30 days, extendable up to 90 days in ordinary suits or 120 days in commercial disputes. A 'No WS' order effectively bars the defendant from defending unless set aside on just and exceptional grounds. The court must ensure that grounds for setting aside a 'No Written Statement Order' are just and exceptionalSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490.
Setting aside such an order isn't automatic. Courts scrutinize reasons for delay, ensuring procedural fairness. Failure to do so results in remanding the matter for de novo considerationSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490.
Courts exercise judicial discretion cautiously. Mere delay isn't enough; compelling reasons must justify reversal. The judgment in Sou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490 clarifies that courts must not only set aside the order on merit but also ensure that the reasons provided are sufficient and meet the criteria of being just and exceptional. This upholds natural justice, preventing arbitrary decisions.
In practice, parties must demonstrate why the lapse occurred and how setting aside serves justice. Proper consideration of the reasons for delay and procedural fairness is criticalSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490.
Typically, if a higher court finds the trial court's scrutiny lacking, it remands the case. The setting aside of the order often results in remand for re-evaluation of the application or the caseSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490. For instance, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for de novo consideration of the applicationSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490. This ensures thorough examination, focusing on validity of grounds.
A pivotal point is that revoking a No WS order doesn't inherently revive cross-examination rights forfeited earlier. Cross-examination is a fundamental right under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, essential for testing witness credibility. However, repeated procedural lapses can lead to separate 'No Cross-Examination' orders.
Setting aside a No WS order does not automatically set aside a prior No Cross-Examination order. This is reinforced by cases emphasizing independent evaluation. For example, in scenarios where defendants miss opportunities despite prior filings, courts uphold separate sanctions. In the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined PW.1 to PW.3, and their evidence was closed, however it is alleged... no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded... though the written statement and defence were already on their recordP. Laxmi Devemma vs Kurva Anjaneyulu - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 3645. Here, failure to cross-examine timely led to forfeiture, unaffected by later WS permissions.
Similarly, the record shows that no WS order passed by trial Court against defendant No.1 was subsequently set aside and defendant No.1 filed his written statement on 07.02.2015Mrudalaben w/o Manoharlal Babaria VS Chhallani Ginning and Pressing Factory - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 97, yet prior evidentiary stages weren't retroactively reopened without fresh justification.
Cross-examination isn't a mere formality—it's a rule of essential justice. Provision of cross-examination... is a rule of essential justice... Party must be given a fair chance to cross-examine witnessKattemane Ganesha, S/o. Late Muthanna VS State Of Karnataka, By Madikeri Rural P. S. , Rep. By Public Prosecutor - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 248. Ignoring it can vitiate trials, leading to set-asides. But in multi-stage proceedings, each order stands on its merits.
Co-Defendants' Rights: Co-defendants in a civil suit have the right to cross-examine witnesses to ensure fair trial rights are upheldKhalsa High School, Mansa VS Vice Chancellor Punjabi University Patiala - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1579. Courts may sequence it to protect plaintiffs, but denial isn't auto-reversed by WS allowances.
Commercial Suits Nuance: Timelines differ, but the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to suits originally filed as ordinary suitsReliance General Insurance Co Ltd VS Colonial Life Insurance Company (trinidad) Ltd - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 620, highlighting procedural context matters.
Natural Justice in Assessments: The court set aside the impugned order... without placing reliance on the statements of the three dealersArun Smelters Ltd, Rep. by its Director Umesh Madan, Egmore VS Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2396, stressing opportunity must be afforded timely.
These cases illustrate that while No WS set-asides promote fairness, they don't cascade to prior cross-exam denials unless explicitly addressed.
Courts balance efficiency with equity. By insisting on a thorough re-consideration, the legal system aims to uphold the principles of natural justiceSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490. Routine reasons fail; grounds for setting aside such an order must be just and exceptionalSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490.
Remand prevents oversight: Trial courts must document reasoning to avoid appellate intervention. In mediation contexts, no automatic suspension occurs without orders—there was no order suspending the time for filing the written statement during the pendency of the mediationM/S JAIN TECHNOLOGIES Vs M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD - 2017 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4397.
To navigate these:- Substantiate Delays: Provide compelling evidence for lapses when seeking set-aside.- Timely Actions: File WS and seek cross-exam promptly to avoid compounded sanctions.- Document Thoroughly: Courts favor detailed applications aligning with CPC principles.- Appeal Strategically: Challenge on natural justice grounds if rights are curtailed.
Courts should rigorously assess whether the grounds... are genuinely just and exceptionalSou Saraswati Gurushantayaa Swami VS Sulbha Malappa Chinchole - 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 1490.
In summary, while civil procedure aims for expeditious justice, it safeguards rights through rigorous checks. This framework ensures no party is unduly prejudiced, but vigilance is key. For tailored guidance, seek expert legal counsel.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#CivilLaw, #NoWSOrder, #CrossExamination
At the stage of judgment, petitioner filed application for setting aside no-cross order and thereafter, filed application Exhibit-61 for setting aside no written statement order. ... Mandlik, no justifiable reasons are given for entertaining application for setting aside no written statement....
However, in order to protect the right of plaintiff, the co-defendants would be allowed and directed to conduct inter-se cross-examination prior to the plaintiff so that they may not demolish the case of plaintiff by putting leading question to each other. ... (Oral):- The petitioner/plaintiff has filed civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Additional C....
Mediation is not intended to be a dilatory tactic in a suit and if pendency of mediation proceedings without any explicit order suspending the time for filing the written statement were to be construed as automatically suspending the time for filing of written statement, the parties/counsels would hesitate ... Admittedly, the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period as per CPC and not#....
to cross examination will be automatically forfeited. ... In the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined PW.1 to PW.3, and their evidence was closed, however it is alleged by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the defendant No.1 herein, though the written statement and defence were already on their ... No.2 of 2014, whereby No....
He further submitted that, if judgment in S.C.No.94/2002 is set-aside and remanded on the ground that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has not been considered, then, the judgment in S.C.No.81/2003 also has to be set-aside and the said matter also has to be remanded, since, they are case ... State of Gujarat reported in (2013)9 SCC 209 held that setting aside the cross#HL_EN....
Mediation is not intended to be a dilatory tactic in a suit and if pendency of mediation proceedings without any explicit order suspending the time for filing the written statement were to be construed as automatically suspending the time for filing of written statement, the parties / counsels would ... Counsel for defendant submits that written statement could not be got signed from the defendant which he has pre....
Crl.P.No.705/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order of dismissal of the application dated 06.01.2023, under Section p style="text-align: ... The order of Trial Court in dismissing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside. ... Therefore, the order of Trial Court rejecting the application is hereby set-aside. - 8 - 12. .......
On 17.02.2017 defendant was directed to file written statement within stipulated period. Same has not been done. No application has been moved for extension of time for filing written statement. ... In the present case, there was no order suspending the time for filing the written statement during the pendency of the mediation. 10. ... Admittedly, the written statement#HL_....
On 17.02.2017 defendant was directed to file written statement within stipulated period. Same has not been done. No application has been moved for extension of time for filing written statement. ... In the present case, there was no order suspending the time for filing the written statement during the pendency of the mediation. 10. ... Admittedly, the written statement#HL_....
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 59/4 of 1995, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged. ... He has also stated in his cross examination the fact that Madan and Gourang had asked Subodh to set the house on fire has not been stated by him to the I.O. ... She sustained extensive #H....
In the written statement the respondent denied the ownership of the Petitioner claiming that he purchased the suit property from one Vijaymala Namdeo Kamble by a sale deed. The petitioner then filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Thereafter, the trial Court by setting aside the no written statement order, permitted the respondent to file written statement.
Anyway, the judgment in Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. does not state the law otherwise. Besides, as observed by that Court, unlike in the case of the impugned judgment, the Petitioners in Raj Process Equipments and System Pvt. Ltd. had not even filed any application for setting aside the "no written statement" order. The statement of the Court in Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 were not noticed in the impugned judgment or other observations made in connection with the provisions of Order VIII R....
No.35399 of 2006, wherein, the identical circumstances, the assessment order has been set aside on the ground that sufficient opportunity to cross examination had not been given. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by this Court in WP. "Thus, for the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall issue summons to the third party dealers and on their appearance before the respondent, permit the responden....
Even at the stage of recording of evidence of both witnesses, defendant No.1 did not take objection regarding admissibility of this document. The record shows that “no WS” order passed by trial Court against defendant No.1 was subsequently set aside and defendant No.1 filed his written statement on 07.02.2015.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the argument has no force as the order passed by this Court was only an interim order while entertaining the Regular Second Appeal. Such order passed does not automatically result in setting aside of the order of the resumption.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
